Defending University Integrity Brian Martin University of Wollongong, [email protected]
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Wollongong Research Online Faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts - Papers Faculty of Law, Humanities and the Arts 2017 Defending university integrity Brian Martin University of Wollongong, [email protected] Publication Details Martin, B. (2017). Defending university integrity. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 13 1-1-1-14. Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] Defending university integrity Abstract Universities are seldom lauded publicly for maintaining good processes and practices; instead, media stories commonly focus on shortcomings. Furthermore, universities, even when doing everything right, sometimes are unfairly targeted for criticism in circumstances in which making a public defence is difficult. A prominent case at the University of Wollongong shows how defending a university's integrity can be hampered by confidentiality requirements, lack of public understanding of thesis examination processes and of disciplinary expectations, and university procedures not designed for extraordinary attacks. The implication is that there can be value in fostering greater awareness of the ways that universities and disciplinary fields operate, and reconsidering procedures with an eye towards possible attacks, both external and internal. Disciplines Arts and Humanities | Law Publication Details Martin, B. (2017). Defending university integrity. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 13 1-1-1-14. This journal article is available at Research Online: http://ro.uow.edu.au/lhapapers/2967 Martin International Journal for Educational Integrity (2017) 13:1 International Journal for DOI 10.1007/s40979-016-0012-z Educational Integrity ORIGINAL ARTICLE Open Access Defending university integrity Brian Martin Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract Humanities and Social Inquiry, University of Wollongong, Universities are seldom lauded publicly for maintaining good processes and Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia practices; instead, media stories commonly focus on shortcomings. Furthermore, universities, even when doing everything right, sometimes are unfairly targeted for criticism in circumstances in which making a public defence is difficult. A prominent case at the University of Wollongong shows how defending a university’s integrity can be hampered by confidentiality requirements, lack of public understanding of thesis examination processes and of disciplinary expectations, and university procedures not designed for extraordinary attacks. The implication is that there can be value in fostering greater awareness of the ways that universities and disciplinary fields operate, and reconsidering procedures with an eye towards possible attacks, both external and internal. Keywords: University integrity, PhD theses, Confidentiality, Public understanding, Procedures, University of Wollongong Introduction This ‘thesis’ is an attack on the integrity of all my Paediatric colleagues who have trained in immunology, infectious diseases and epidemiology. We see the benefits, and the low risk, of immunization every day of our working lives. This ‘thesis’ is a travesty of academic endeavour and the UOW should be ashamed to be associated with it. — Philip Moore, comment on Change.org petition (Fein 2016). As both an academic and a pro-vaxxer, this disgusts me. This undermines real re- search, and lowers the overall standard of the PhD. It is potentially dangerous to lend legitimacy to the anti-vax movement. — Sarah Stenson, comment on Chan- ge.org petition (Fein 2016). Her PhD dissertation is not fit to be used as toilet paper. This university has lost a lot of credibility by allowing her to receive a Ph.D for what is truly a piece of anti-vaccine propaganda with no actual research of a credible nature to support her claims. Was her graduation cap covered in tin foil when they gave her that dissertation? — Chris Hickie, SAVN Facebook page, 27 July 2016. UOW is forever tarnished by this shambolic PhD. This piece of rubbish ‘research’ would NEVER have been allowed to occur at any of the Group of 8 universities! — Vincent Ferrano, SAVN Facebook page, 29 July 2016. © The Author(s). 2017 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. Martin International Journal for Educational Integrity (2017) 13:1 Page 2 of 14 For university administrators, maintaining the integrity of teaching, research and ad- ministrative processes can sometimes seem like a thankless task. Considerable efforts are put into developing robust systems for ensuring good practice, to protect staff and to prevent various forms of corruption. In parallel, conscientious staff do everything they can to maintain high standards. However, all it takes for a university’s reputation to suffer is for a lapse — even a minor or temporary one — to be exposed by the media. Stories about plagiarism, soft marking, harassment and corruption are news- worthy precisely because they clash with the high ideals about learning and knowledge creation associated with universities.1 For example, in Australia there have been numerous media stories about student plagiarism, but rarely if ever a story about how universities foster proper acknowledgement practice. An Australian vice-chancellor was exposed for plagiarism and resigned (Madden 2002); this was newsworthy in a way that ordinary (non-plagiarising) scholarship seldom is. In contrast to media stories on scandals in the university sector, there is little cover- age of good practices, which can encompass much of the routine operation of univer- sities. Most university employees take pride in carrying out their jobs in an ethical, professional manner. Indeed, it can be argued that the most serious challenges to integ- rity are not due to individual failures but to structural factors, for example the squeeze on university funding, the priority many students put on acquiring degrees compared to learning, and the funding of research by groups with vested interests. These are matters for discussion elsewhere. In any case, there is little publicity about structurally generated challenges to integrity compared to failures by individuals, a discrepancy that can trigger a culture of avoiding visible shortcomings at the expense of taking risks to foster excellence. An even more invidious situation for a university is when it maintains proper processes and high standards and yet comes under public attack. This can occur in a variety of ways, including false allegations, for example by a disgruntled staff member (e.g., Martin 2002, 2005); guilt by association, for example when an academic is involved in crimes in a private capacity (e.g., Flaherty 2015); criminal or disreputable activities blamed on universities, for example sexual harassment or alcohol-related deaths in fraternities (e.g., Lambert 2016; Tribbensee 2004). The challenge for administrators and media managers is how to defend the univer- sity’s reputation when, according to the best inside knowledge, its processes are well de- signed and have been followed to a high level. This challenge seems to have seldom been addressed in the literature, for example not being mentioned in the comprehen- sive Handbook of Academic Integrity (Bretag 2016). To illustrate some of the issues involved, I describe here a particular case involving the University of Wollongong, in which the university came under a ferocious public attack for granting a PhD. This case, because of its scale and the diversity of methods involved, is a particularly rich example and thus highlights several important issues. Even though most universities will never experience such an episode, the case can be useful in pointing to challenges that might be faced on a smaller scale. Martin International Journal for Educational Integrity (2017) 13:1 Page 3 of 14 I write about this case as a key figure in the episode, and thus draw on elements of the methodology of participant observation (Jorgensen 1989; Spradley 1980). The pub- lic attack on the University of Wollongong was an aspect of an attack on one of my PhD students and on me personally. My involvement has both disadvantages and ad- vantages from the point of view of undertaking an analysis and writing an account. The primary disadvantage is the possibility of bias due to defending reputations of people involved, especially my own. I have tried to mitigate this problem by seeking comments on drafts from various individuals. The primary advantage of having a personal involve- ment in the case is access to information, including being able to talk to key figures. One of the difficulties for university administrations defending their processes is that many decision-making deliberations, for example concerning admissions, appointments and handling of complaints, are considered confidential. Although I have access to quite a lot of information about how University of Wollongong procedures operated in this case, I am not at liberty to reveal everything relevant, for example information obtained from informal discussions with university officials. Therefore, ironically, this account